BothAndBlog Forum

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussi ... ent/676048
Are there any scientific grounds for god?

Can the notion of god or some form of all encompassing entity be reconciled with the fundamental basis for religions and then natural sciences? Need spirituality and science be at odds with one another or could they indeed both be describing the same thing from different perspectives? — Benj96

The ancient polytheistic notion of gods as super-humans, living on clouds or mountains, would certainly be verifiable/falsifiable by modern scientific methods. Ironically, in Daniel 14, the prophet performed a sort of scientific test, to falsify the belief that the idol called "Bel" was actually consuming the food offered to him. But that real-world god-concept long ago succumbed to the ideal-realm god-concept of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic monotheism. Yet there are no scientific methods to verify the existence of a deity that is defined as a non-physical Spirit, and exists eternally outside the limits of space-time. So no, there is no way to reconcile the religious belief in a holy spiritual God with the scientific belief in a wholly material world.

That's why some philosophers & scientists have attempted to make peace between the Spiritual & Material worldviews, by creating a no-fly-zone between them. Natural Science was presumed to be authoritative about all physical questions, while Supernatural Religion (Theology) ruled over all metaphysical inquiries. But voluntary segregation doesn't work if both sides are motivated to have it all: to have the last word on all questions of Truth.

However, there may be a different way to conciliate the Science vs Religion conflict. That middle way is the purview of secular Philosophy, which has no official creed, and is only interested in plausible Truth, not scientific Facts or religious Faith. Unfortunately, the polarized adversaries both tend to belittle the power of unaided Reason to discover universal truths, without divine Revelation or empirical Verification. However, those of us who are not taking sides in this "holey" war, can create our own personal NOMA, in which to hide from the crossfire.

FWIW, my personal worldview is that "they" are indeed describing the same fundamental principle from different superficial perspectives. Hence, my holistic philosophy is labeled "BothAnd". It's based on merging the 21st century sciences of Information & Quantum, not on ancient beliefs in Materialism or Spiritualism. Instead, the "atom" of reality is mundane Enformation : the power to create novel forms of both Matter & Mind, both Physics & Psyche. If that sounds absurd, NOMA also sounded ridiculous to those on opposite poles of the Knowledge continuum.


Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA) is the view, advocated by Stephen Jay Gould, that science and religion each represent different areas of inquiry
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overl ... magisteria

Holey : full of holes or gaps; not whole or complete

Both/And Principle :
* My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism. Analysis into parts is necessary for knowledge of the mechanics of the world, but synthesis of those parts into a whole system is required for the wisdom to integrate the self into the larger system. In a philosophical sense, all opposites in this world (e.g. space/time, good/evil) are ultimately reconciled in Enfernity (eternity & infinity).
BothAnd Blog Glossary

However the knife cuts both ways: Theists can't claim they themselves know anything about God. Could they? How do they avoid the special pleading fallacy? Beats me! — Agent Smith

Actually, many do claim to know God (or Jesus) personally. But not in an objective sense. They "know" (experience) their spiritual Lord subjectively as a "feeling". And subjective knowledge cannot be proven or dis-proven empirically. That's why you have to take it on faith in the truthfulness of the person making the claim (special pleading??).

Surprisingly, some theists -- including my own religious background -- deny that their Faith is "just a feeling". Yet, in that case, their faith is transferred to objective scriptures, presumably based on eyewitness testimony : the Bible. Ironically, those church-authorized scriptures don't hold-up to dispassionate objective scrutiny. So, what can you do then, if the logical necessity of a First or Final Cause of contingent existence is impervious to empirical or scriptural assaults? For me, that rational conclusion falls into the category of principle-seeking Philosophy, instead of emotional or traditional Religion. Of course, as an abstract philosophical tenet, you lose all the good stuff : worldly blessings & heavenly hereafter. So, it doesn't inspire much in the way of feelings. :halo:

Is Faith Just a Feeling? :
Faith—properly understood—is not a feeling. Rather, faith is active trust based on evidence. Of course, faith can affect how we feel. For example, my trust in my wife may produce feelings of happiness and gratitude, while mistrust can produce feelings of sadness and betrayal.
So faith and feelings are related, but different. Unfortunately, some people base their faith on their feelings. Consequently, the good feelings they get from praying, worshiping, or attending church lead them to conclude their faith is true. In this case, faith is held hostage by feelings.
This is extremely dangerous because feelings are fickle—they can change from day to day.
https://www.str.org/w/is-faith-just-a-feeling-

Neither empiricism nor revelation. What exactly are we talking about here? . . . .
Oh! It's your Both/And Principle. — Agent Smith

You guessed it!

A Proposed Alternative Theory of Reality :
. . . Both Material and Spiritual
The BothAnd principle is a corollary of the Enformationism thesis. It views the world as a process motivated & guided by antagonistic-yet-complementary powers. For example, Energy is the motive force for all physical actions, but its positive effects are offset by the, less well known, antithetical force of Disorganization in the great dialectical process of evolution. The overall effect of Change in the universe is destructive, as encapsulated in the concept of "Entropy" (negative transformation). Yet, by balancing destructive Entropy with constructive "Enformy" (self-organization), evolution has proven to be a creative process. However, since the existence of "Enformy" has not yet been accepted by mainstream science --- except in the crude concept of “negentropy” --- any worldview based on such a flimsy foundation is likely to be dismissed by either/or empiricists as a bunch of Woo. Yet, all scientific & philosophical speculation inevitably begins with a leap of imagination. And this hybrid world-view is one such leap into the unknown.
BothAnd Blog, post 4
Note -- The space-time world is inherently dualistic, divided into opposing forces (positive vs negative), and obverse forms (matter & energy), and antagonistic worldviews (Materialism vs Spiritualism). But, there remains a monistic origin for all the dualities of reality : the scientific "Singularity" or the philosophical "First Cause". Moreover, in the space-&-time-bound universe, there remains Substance Monism, as proposed by Spinoza : the "Single Substance" of the natural world, which he called "Nature or God". In my thesis I call it EnFormAction : the creative power to cause change. the term is a portmanteau, combining Energy & Information into a single creative force.

EnFormAction :
Ententional Causation. A proposed metaphysical law of the universe that causes random interactions between forces and particles to produce novel & stable arrangements of matter & energy.
Bothand Blog, glossary

For theists to maintain the Islamic position on God (there's nothing in us or in the world that could be used to get a handle on God hence Islam's hard-line iconoclasm) and also to claim knowledge of God, something quite clever needs to be done, oui? Apophasis (via negativa) + Cataphasis (BothAnd Gnomon) — Agent Smith

For the record, I don't think of the BothAnd Principle as a rhetorical device. Instead, it's a harmonious Holistic worldview. In some aspects, a BothAnd perspective is like the modern scientific concepts of "Relativity" & "Superposition". It allows you to see both sides of coin, or both sides of an argument, in order to reach a better understanding of a complex situation as a whole system of interacting parts. So, it's also the philosophical basis of scientific Systems Theory.


Cataphasis : noun. Rhetoric. the use of affirmative statements to discuss a subject; affirmation through positive statements.

Both/And Principle :
My coinage for the holistic principle of Complementarity, as illustrated in the Yin/Yang symbol. Opposing or contrasting concepts are always part of a greater whole. Conflicts between parts can be reconciled or harmonized by putting them into the context of a whole system.
* The Enformationism worldview entails the principles of Complementarity, Reciprocity & Holism, which are necessary to ofset the negative effects of Fragmentation, Isolation & Reductionism.
* Conceptually, the BothAnd principle is similar to Einstein's theory of Relativity, in that what you see ─ what’s true for you ─ depends on your perspective, and your frame of reference;
* This principle is also similar to the concept of Superposition in sub-atomic physics. In this ambiguous state a particle has no fixed identity until “observed” by an outside system.

A "restatement" of (Hegel's) dialectics https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic or more generally dualistic monism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectical_monism ... But why reinvent the wheel, Gnomon? How does your variation on this theme improve on Laozi, Anaximander, Heraclitus, Socrates/Plato ... Fichte, Hegel, Marx/Engels, Bookchin ...? Or the likes of Advaita Vendata? :chin:
Btw, your references to "Relativity" and "Superposition" are pseudo-scientistic non sequiturs which do not help make your case. — 180 Proof

When I first started posting on this forum I noticed that you seemed to know a lot more about the history of philosophy than I do. So, I thought I might learn something from you. But I eventually learned that most of your replies to my posts can be summed-up in two words : "boo" & "hiss". Apparently, there is something about my idiosyncratic personal worldview, or my way of expressing it, that offends you viscerally.

I've never been able to understand exactly what the sore point is, except that perhaps I don't pay homage to some authoritative scientists & philosophers, as listed in your post. I'll admit that I can't help being ignorant of a lot of the history of philosophy. In college, I took basic courses in all the major disciplines of Science. Yet the only philosophy course I took was "Logic", and that was a Math requirement. Consequently, I have a better-than-average understanding of science-in-general. But the only philosophers that I'm somewhat familiar with, are Plato & Aristotle --- who basically wrote "the book" on philosophy for the next 2500 years. As some wit observed, about "variations on a theme", it's all "footnotes to Plato".

Anyway, I only dove into philosophy seriously after I retired -- just a few years ago --and began to construct a broad-but-coherent worldview, for my own personal use. The prompt for that on-going project was the conjunction of two paradigm-shifting innovations in 20th century science : Quantum & Information theories. So, I'm trying to weave those disparate scientific concepts into a holistic & consistent philosophical worldview, for my own personal application. Yet, there are plenty of practicing scientists, who are also exploring the philosophical implications of an Information-based universe. And, as you so astutely noted, my personal BothAnd philosophy is merely an update of ancient Golden Mean & Moderation principles for a philosophical life, updated for the current polarized context of adamant Either/Or positions..

Anyway, my general posting policy is to ignore your replies to my posts, because they seldom have anything positive to contribute. They seem to be mostly polarized shout-downs & heckles. However, I must thank you for the links to Dialectic articles. They do seem to be relevant to my thesis, but I assume you were actually trying to pigeonhole me into some easily ridiculed historical positions. Since, as a novice, I'm not well-read in the doctrines you listed above, I have been forced to "reinvent the wheel" to suit a 21st century worldview and context. My "variation" on a long-running philosophical theme was incidental to the thrust of a novel perspective that the venerable philosophers you listed were completely ignorant of. I'm just a layman working alone, while scientific & philosophical pioneers are forging new trails into the unknown territory of information-based Mind & Matter.

PS__Your dismissal of my references to "Relativity" & "Superposition", indicates that you have no idea what aspects of those concepts I'm talking about. FWIW, I make my case in more detail in the thesis and blog.

Philosophical Attitude :
Karl Jasper submits that “he who believes that he understands everything is no longer engaged in philosophical thought, he who takes scientific insight for knowledge of being itself and as a whole has succumbed to scientific superstition. He who has ceased to be astonished has ceased to question. He who acknowledges no mystery is no longer a seeker, because he humbly acknowledges the limit of possible knowledge. Karl jasper concluded that developing the philosophical attitude opens our mind to the unknowable that is revealed at those limits.”
https://medium.com/@TosinOlufeyimi/why- ... 06f34bab94

The renowned British philosopher A.N Whitehead once commented on Plato's thought: “The safest general characterization of the European philosophical tradition is that it consists of a series of footnotes to Plato.
https://www.college.columbia.edu/core/c ... head-plato

A Universe Built of Information :
"In the long journey of the human mind attempting to decode the workings of reality, one trusted companion has to be abandoned: the materialistic and reductionistic scientific worldview."
___ James B. Glattfelder, physicist
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.10 ... 03633-1_13

There are no methods full stop. It is not a case of science’s short falls. — I like sushi

Actually, it's not that simple. For the reductive methods of empirical science, there is no way to analyze a Holistic concept into its constituent parts. Because, by definition, a Whole is more than the sum of its parts. That's not really a "shortfall" for physical Science, though. But it's an opportunity for theoretical Philosophy to pick-up the slack. Actually, there is a new approach that some call "Holistic Science" (HS), but is better known as "Systems Science" (SS). Unfortunately, like Philosophical conjectures, the conclusions of HS & SS are unlikely to be conclusively proven by empirical evidence*1. Human beliefs will always remain beyond the scope of standard scientific methods.

Regrettably, non-reductive methods are often indiscriminately ridiculed as "pseudoscience". Nevertheless, SS remains a useful approach for the "soft" sciences, such as Psychology & Sociology, which seldom produce final "proven" Facts. What they do offer is rational insights into confusing complex systems. Ironically, the holistic systematic procedures used are almost indistinguishable from the traditional methods of philosophical "thought experiments". Therefore, they could conceivably be applied to such perennial stumper questions, such as "what existed before the Big Bang", or" why do people believe in an invisible deity".

Holism in science :
[Holism in science, and holistic science, is an approach to research that emphasizes the study of complex systems. Systems are approached as coherent wholes whose component parts are best understood in context and in relation to one another and to the whole.
This practice is in contrast to a purely analytic tradition (sometimes called reductionism) . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism_in_science

Systems science :
To systems scientists, the world can be understood as a system of systems. The field aims to develop interdisciplinary foundations that are applicable in a variety of areas, such as psychology, biology, medicine, communication, business management, technology, computer science, engineering, and social sciences. . . .
The best known research institute in the field is the Santa Fe Institute (SFI) located in Santa Fe, New Mexico, United States, dedicated to the study of complex systems.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_science

A Theory of Almost Everything :
Santa Fe Institute, the self-anointed headquarters of complexity. ... is our best means of distinguishing science from pseudo-science.
https://www.nytimes.com/1995/10/01/book ... thing.html

*1. String Theory & Loop Quantum Gravity are usually considered legitimate Science, even though their conjectures are unlikely to yield any empirical confirmation in our lifetime. Perhaps the Santa Fe Institute, as it gains legitimacy, will be emboldened to take-on the ultimate Systems questions about the conditional existence of the universe. Until then, that job will fall to non-institutional philosophers.

↪Gnomon
Asking why people believe in a ‘deity’ is not exactly defining what a ‘deity’ is in any reasonable manner. That is my point. It is like skipping the question ‘what happened before the bog bang’ and jumping straight into details of ‘before the big bang’. — I like sushi

Are you not interested in a well-established philosophical concept, that was taken for granted by some of the smartest people on the planet for thousands of years? That list would include the "great skeptic" Voltaire.

Speaking of "smart people", is it not interesting that Albert Einstein often used the word "god" in reference to the unsolved mysteries of the world? Obviously, he is not referring to the various popular definitions of gods & God. Wouldn't you like to know what all the fuss is about, before you begin to dissect the general concept of deity into specific "details". Is the OP question a legitimate topic for discussion on a philosophy forum?

Once we have established that there is some reasonable basis for the plethora of religious ( celestial superheroes) & philosophical (First Cause) cosmologies, we can take those reasons seriously. What is common to all of them? Only then, can we treat the OP topic with respect. After all, it's asking about "scientific grounds", not "scriptural" or "emotional" grounds for the widespread god-concept among humanity. What is it about the real world that causes people to look beyond their physical senses for a universal Cause?


"I cannot imagine how the clockwork of the universe can exist without a clockmaker."
___Voltaire

"If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him."
___Voltaire

"A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty - it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man."
___Albert Einstein

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
___Albert Einstein

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings."
___Albert Einstein

↪Gnomon
The floor is yours. Say something. — I like sushi

Thanks, but I've already given my reply to the OP. Other, than that, I'm letting Voltaire and Einstein speak for me. Their personal opinions on the topic are not scientific facts, but philosophical inferences.

You did mention in a previous post, adversarial collaboration but I'm not sure how much of that is just talk or hand waving. Instead of trying to make opposing sides join hands, isn't it better to let them go their separate ways and just wait & watch; whichever side gets it (the truth that is) is to be awarded a Nobel Prize. If both reach the finish line simulataneously, twice the fun, oui? — Agent Smith

This forum is supposed to be a meeting place for philosophical dialogue. and the Site Guidelines say : "Don't start a new discussion unless you are: a) Genuinely interested in the topic you've begun and are willing to engage those who engage you." No-one is trying to force "opposing sides to join hands". Instead, each side is allowed to present an argument, pro or con, regarding the topical question or comment. For an engagement to work though, it takes two to tango.

Unfortunately, some posters get stuck on the "adversarial" step, and never make it to the "collaboration" station. So, they try to shut to door to further discussion, by demanding concession to a specified authority. But that tactic seldom works when there are strong motives on both sides. Some of the forum's longest-running threads are also the most contentious. So, the failure to communicate, or to "reach the finish line simultaneously" may be an indication of serious philosophical or political polarization. And "adversarial collaboration" requires identifying "diagnostic points of divergence", and a willingness to reach an agreement. The divergent topics are pretty clear, but the agreement stage may be a long time coming.

So, I'm not holding my breath, waiting for a break-through. After all, we are still debating some of the same topics that Plato & Aristotle raised 2500 years ago : "God", "Consciousness", "Free Will", etc. There's a common aphorism : "It's the journey, not the destination that matters.". Which acknowledges that you may never reach your desired destination. That's why I'm not trying to convert anyone to my personal worldview. Instead, by submitting my perspective to opposing views, I can learn it's deficiencies & weaknesses. As Nietszche said, "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger". :joke:

Philosophical dialogue is a mutual inquiry based on the principle that the more points of view there are, the better we understand what there is to understand. There are no winners and no losers - it is open, based on collaboration.
https://lepole.education/en/philosophy/ ... ml?start=4

adversarial collaboration rests on identifying the most diagnostic points of divergence
between competing theories, reaching agreement on precisely what they predict, and then designing
experiments that directly test those diverging predictions.
science.sciencemag.org/content/372/6545/911

↪Gnomon
Thanks for the explanation. The two sides of a debate could thrash out the sticking points, identify where they disagree and come to a mutually acceptable agreement on how to settle their differences. — Agent Smith

Yes. That's the theory. But, in practice, the core disagreement may be so wide & rigid that mutuality is impossible. When that happens, I call it a "political" dispute, instead of a "philosophical" dialogue. On this forum, the core issue seems to be focused on the authority of Science, envisioned as having monolithic dominion over certain kinds of questions, including "norms" & "values", but especially concerning Metaphysics.

For over a thousand years, the Catholic Church used Aristotle's & Ptolemy's physics & metaphysics as the final authority to settle dissension within its ranks. Today, Ari is out of favor, and Ptolemy is discredited. So capital "s" Science has taken their place as Ultimate Arbiter, at least for believers in doctrinaire Scientism. In general, that absolute trust in empirical Science, as opposed to theoretical Philosophy, was mandated by proponents of Logical Positivism (aka Logical Empiricism). Ironically, that movement has boldly crossed-over into the "Magisterium" of Religion. Hence, it seems to serve as a sort of religion-substitute for its adherents.

Although they may not realize that they have been indoctrinated with an anti-philosophy attitude, a few posters on this forum feel that their mission is to root-out heretics, who insist on defying the sovereignty of Science, by delving into Metaphysics, and by insisting that there is more to Reality (e.g. Mind) than just Matter & Physics. Therefore, it's that "sticking point" which blocks some attempts to reach "mutually acceptable agreements". Undaunted, some of us soldier on, buoyed by faith in FreeWill & Reason, to explore the meta-physical mysteries of our world, and especially the human Mind.

PS__Disclaimer : These are just my personal opinions, not those of The Philosophy Forum.


Scientism is the view that science and the scientific method are the best or only objective means by which people should determine normative and epistemological values. . . .
In the philosophy of science, the term scientism frequently implies a critique of the more extreme expressions of logical positivism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Logical positivists denied the soundness of metaphysics and traditional philosophy; they asserted that many philosophical problems are indeed meaningless.
http://people.loyno.edu/~folse/logpos.htm

What is this concept of ‘god’? That is my starting question if the OP is asking about possible proof. — I like sushi

Apparently, he was not questioning any particular god-concept, but merely the almost universal notion of some transcendent power over the world. Most of the world's religions hold that their supernatural authority (Lord) must be worshiped in order to receive blessings, or to avoid punishments. I suspect it's that intervening (blessing & cursing) Western (Abrahamic) god-model that the OP assumes may require some empirical evidence in a skeptical age. Almost all popular religions teach that their god, if properly motivated, can override Nature, and sometimes even human actions, on their behalf. That's the one I replied to in the negative. Empirical science has no evidence, one way or the other, about such extra-mundane beliefs.

Before the advent of modern science, most people were mystified by the vagaries of Nature, which seemed as unpredictable, mercurial, & capricious as the behavior of their human leaders. But, there are other, more philosophical, and mostly Eastern (TAO), notions of transcendent power, that make no claims of placatable deities. In those cases, the deity or deities were presumed responsible for both the good and the bad events in the world (Good & Evil). Hence, a Stoic attitude was the best way to think about the inexplicable positive or negative effects of Nature on human welfare. Ironically, such apathy is almost indistinguishable from our modern concept of Nature as an automatic mechanism. Consequently, our scientists feel no qualms about tinkering with dangerous natural processes, in order to make them more agreeable to human wishes.

Unfortunately, Stoicism & Scientism, are not very attractive to the average human, who is more inclined to pray for instant & personal help, rather than to wait for human ingenuity to learn to control tornadoes, earthquakes, cancer, plagues, insurrections, civil wars, and so forth, with technology instead of magic. Those more philosophically inclined though, may still find the general notion of First Cause, or Cosmic Force, or Tao helpful to make sense of a bewildering world. From that cosmic perspective we are all parts of a universal Whole.

Since the Cosmos as-a-whole is "more than the sum of its parts: it is both Immanent & Transcendent. So, you can call it "GOD", or "TAO", or "LOGOS", or simply "Nature", as you please. However, there will still be no empirical evidence for that Holistic concept. The affirmation is merely philosophical, rational, & theoretical. So, the answer to the OP is still negative.


Conceptions of God in monotheist, pantheist, and panentheist religions – or of the supreme deity in henotheistic religions – can extend to various levels of abstraction: as a powerful, human-like,
___Wikipedia

Stoic physics :
The Stoics often identified the universe and God with Zeus, as the ruler and upholder, and at the same time the law, of the universe. The Stoic God is not a transcendent omniscient being standing outside nature, but rather it is immanent—the divine element is immersed in nature itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoic_physics

http://gnomon.enformationism.info/Image ... %20god.png